Undercover Discourse Agents Conduct True Experiments

Actually, like, Diane, I pondered the pairing of these two readings. Since I couldn't conclude any connection, I figured a zippy title would suffice. You laugh now, but it could be the name of a new reality show, and you'll be sorry you didn't think of it!!!

Anyway, I do have a couple of comments and questions about that always scintillating L & A. I think I get the gist of it, minus all that statistics vernacular that I constantly struggle with week after week (sorry Brad and Billy, as good as you were, I just cannot wrap my brain around this stuff). First, on page 158, O'Hare was concerned with his inability to "control for the language experiences of the subjects outside their English classrooms" and put extra time investigating these experiences. However, L & A note that his efforts were unnecessary because "randomization had already been expected to equalize these variables." I disagree-- these experiences (over which O'Hare could not have control and would not be expected to control) would have to play into the experiment, disrupting the assumed equality, and the only way to get around this would be to control every nuance of a research subject's life--sort of like the movie The Truman Show with Jim Carrey. Obviously, this type of research is virtually impossible and should not be pursued due to the practicality and reliability of such research (that whole clinical v. reality thing), but I don't think these experiences can be discounted. This is not to say that O'Hare should give up his research, but as we have discussed, a researcher would need to address these types of issues. Later in the chapter, L & A discuss "Testing" under the heading Measurement threats to internal validity which further--at least in my mind--confuses their readers as to purpose. It's almost as if they are saying, "We want to mention this potential problem, but it really doesn't apply to true experiments." Did anyone else sense this? It probably isn't crucial, but what is "a paper of definition" as referred to on page 157?

Now I usually look forward to reading K & S after L & A, but Mortensen was denser than dense at times. I appreciated what he had to say, but (I think Vicki mentioned this), I could have used something more practical rather than philosophical. And, dare I say it, he must have asked Captain Obvious for some input. Of course, research on talk about writing has limitations--especially when others are listening and recording either the writing process itself or the talk about writing as in writing conferences. These two scenarios will only become artificial, and the results of such observation can only lead to further discussion, not to conclusions. As we read and discussed earlier in L & A, observing talk about the writing process can only provide a glimpse and, in my opinion, cannot really be quantified as those researchers sadly attempted to do. And, just as we concluded from Brodkey's study of literacy in letters, when a researcher will be listening and recording talk about writing as in a writing conference, the discourse cannot but be affected, becoming fictional, but that should not stop us from talking about talking about writing as Mortensen adeptly concludes.

More posting problems

I attempted to post a blog, but it wouldn't post. I could only retrieve part of what I had originally typed and copied it to a word document. I will try to finish again later.

Readings on the Continuum

There seems to be some confusion as to what we are blogging about this week. I noted on my schedule that because Brad could not make it for facilitation 5 a couple of weeks ago, we were to read L & A's "Prediction and Classification Studies" and Brodkey's "On the Subject of Class and Gender in 'The Literacy Letters'" for March 19. I will assume that is the case and proceed to discuss a little L & A and more on Brodkey.

Not that I waited my whole life for this very moment, but this chapter in L & A provided some interesting insight as to how some colleges make predictions of success. I never considered it could be so quantitative. I will readily admit I didn't understand the nuts and bolts of the operations (I got lost in the sea of statistical nomenclature), but I do see where using particular equations can provide some correlation and prediction data. And just as these researchers have to be careful with redoing prediction studies to avoid shrinkage (it's amazing that a word like this can provide so many different meanings depending upon the subject matter at hand), as teachers we need to continue to stay abreast of the latest developments in composition research; what worked in the past may not prove successful now or in the future "because of changes in the nature of student bodies, curricula, and grading standards" (121).

The moment I saw Brodkey's name on the schedule I knew I was in for a tough academic read. Those of you who were not in Literacy Studies must forgive me, but I couldn't help taking the What is literacy? approach while reading this article, and specifically the pedogogy of Paulo Friere when Brodkey discusses the teacher and student roles and relationship. Brodkey introduces some interesting perspective on her research,

I have tried to type and post, but I keep losing what I have typed. I think something is wrong with the website. I will try to write more later.

Here's more--I saved a word document as a web document and am pasting the contents below as of Wednesday, 2:42 p.m.:
Let’s see. . . where was I? I apologize for any redundancy. I think I was getting ready to discuss Brodkey from a literacy perspective first rather than from a research perspective. She discusses the role of the subjects—was she looking for a deliberate role reversal from both parties? Or, was she more interested in whether the roles would reverse as the result of the teachers taking the initiative? The whole idea of “reading” class and gender in personal correspondence or any text for that matter seems to be automatic, but more from the standpoint of vernacular and command of the language rather than conclusions made from the subject matter or narrative itself. Brodkey’s warning against “reducing text to its errors” reminded me of a poignant moment in Dr. Wilson’s class a couple of years ago when he asked us to read an essay written by a student in his freshman seminar. Sadly, too many of us focused on the glaring errors when we really should have been moved by this student’s account of his sister’s forced female circumcision in his native country. I left class that day feeling guilty about my bourgeois attitude.

It was only after I digested the article from a literacy standpoint that I considered it from a research standpoint. First, I applaud Brodkey’s continued emphasis on the importance of qualitative evaluation and study. Measuring writing from only a quantitative stance can restrict our appreciation of the discourse itself. I do question, however, how Brodkey can claim that her study and the subsequent conclusions would not be influenced by the fact that the letters being written would indeed be read and analyzed. We know how important audience is, even if it means that personal correspondence will be made “public”—if I am writing to a particular person, but know that someone else will be reading and analyzing my composition, what and how I write will decidedly different. As a “teacher,” I would be guarded as to topic and tone, not just grammar and mechanics. Finally, what was the begging question that Brodkey needed answered with this study?

Can I get a little Chi Square with my Spearman's rho here?

Before my brains dry up completely and blow away, let me briefly discuss some Lauer and Asher. Maybe it's just me, but the first thing that struck me was the question of privacy in Study 2, Odell and Goswami. If a study could be done looking at the various written products of administrators and caseworkers at a social service agency, where else are studies being conducted? And, isn't a study supposed to be beneficial to others? Perhaps I need to read the study itself, but I don't see what benefit it is to society or to anyone really what "the extent to which non-academic writers were sensitive to rhetorical issues such as the relationship to audience and the ethos conveyed in their writing" (83). So I get to the variables of the studies and stop short at Diederich's; what the heck is "flavor"? Is that style using a pseudonym? Then what is "wording"? Again, maybe it's the English teacher in me, but what about focus? As I move further into this chapter, all that English education gets shoved aside, and I'm desperately trying to recall the stats class I had back in the day. A few terms I was vaguely familiar with, but the rest was all Greek to me (pun intended). And just when I thought I had the independent and dependent variables figured out, I stumble across nominal and interval variables. Is a nominal variable a non-number and an interval variable a number? I would love some help here. Lastly, I noticed in the INTERACTIONS section that Odell and Goswami add a moderator variable. Wouldn't this be something they would have to "label" up front? Or did they have to go back and examine the memos, letters, etc. with an eye on the sex of the writer? Yeah, I probably could have worded that question better (albeit less ambiguous), but I'm not going to change it now--you all know what I mean. And it now seems I wasn't as brief as I thought I would be!

After a large glass of water, I readied myself for the Beach in K and S. Can I just say "Amen" here? More examples than a girl could ask for! And not just examples to explain his point; they actually were--and this is where it gets exciting--informative and beneficial. He lives in the real world, a world where hard-core quantitative statistics don't rule! He, too, sees the problem with writing assessment as "differences in writers' knowledge about an assignment topic or interest in the topic may influence their performance," stirring up questions of validity of the PSSAs or any standardized testing (232). His last line really sums it up: "By adopting a self-reflexive mode and making these assumptions explicit, researchers can move away from letting rigid adherence to technical procedures govern their understanding of writing" (239). What teacher wouldn't love this man?

I came across the word tagmemic again--even after looking it up on OED online, I can't put it into context as when Beach mentions, "tagmemic heuristics" (234). Oh, and what are cohesion ties? I came across that one in L & A and Beach and couldn't figure it out. Any help here would be appreciated.

Okay, now I have a confession to make: I came across an article about a study, "Why Bosses Tend to Be Blowhards," in the March 2, 2009 edition of TIME Magazine. Not only was it fascinating because it connects to most of us in the work world, but I could understand the researchers' need to have quantitative data and, after the few weeks I have spent in this class, better appreciated the work that went into the study. I'll bring it along on Thursday in case anyone is interested. I feel so much better now....

Statistically Speaking in a Pluralistic Way...

So maybe it's just me, but did Lauer and Asher ask Captain Obvious to write "Samplings and Surveys"? I couldn't help but pause throughout and think to myself how blatantly obvious the contents of this chapter were. Of course the sample must represent the population. Of course the confidence interval must be as low as possible within economic constraints. You mean my questions need to be clear? Not that it didn't help to get a quick statistics refresher--and from a different perspective--but so much of it seemed to be common sense. The last part of the chapter, however, did serve to remind us that we need not reinvent the wheel. Oh, and I'm glad I'm not a statistician.

Although still leaning towards some obviousness, Kirsch's article nicely examined and explained some of the tensions in the world of academia, not just in composition research. There has always been conflict between the disciplines, and she confirms that composition research just added more drama. I did find Kirsch's article to be a bit contrary at times. She begins with a discussion of the work of Bereiter and Scardamalia, explaining their levels of inquiry--which bring back memories of Lauer and Asher's chapter on case studies and our discussions of Vygotsky in the last class--and points out that "they state that the term level is misleading, and they do not wish to imply that work at any one level is more intellectually worthwhile than work at another level" (249). Later on page 250, she asks, "Are studying and modeling cognitive processes involved in writing the most important kinds of composition research (represented as the highest level in Bereiter and Scardamalia's framework)?" Did she actually read what she wrote? Also, she initially leads her readers to believe that Bereiter and Scardamalia support methodological pluralism (at least that's how I took it), but then states that their "assumption that we can arrive at a 'right process model' (4) reflects a belief in a single, verifiable truth ..." (250). Is she confused or are they?

Later she reiterates why we as educators even feel the need to conduct research in the first place, which in my mind solidifies the need for methodological pluralism. We cannot be satisfied with a one-size-fits-all mentality. I agree with Irmscher in that he sees the need for a more humanistic approach, just as we have seen in the writings of Moss and Brodkey. And then there's North who seems to be playing Devil's advocate here with his talk of an academic Armageddon. A "methodological war"? Ethnographers going to the dark side, the department of anthropology? The saga continues....

One particular section that really captured my attention was her discussion of Hull and Rose and the researcher-subject relationship. Being a tutor in the writing lab at HACC provided great insight to the social and cultural contexts from which students write. She mentions H and R's student's misguided intentions when he plagiarizes--depending upon a student's culture, plagiarism is not only accepted, but is viewed as a way to honor the author. At HACC, I did not merely help those who struggled to write, showing them the accepted writing conventions; it was more than that. So many factors entered into students' writing, their cultural and social experiences and culturally accepted norms, many that run counter to what we find acceptable in our "American culture." I discovered I needed to develop a sort of relationship with each student to fully help them achieve their writing goals. Just as there are many facets of human existence, more than one methodology is necessary to research and sort out human behavior. We cannot ignore the fact that composition is socially constructed, and therefore, the research itself must be socially constructed, thus employing several methodologies in the process.

A Fan of Newkirk (Sorry Lauer and Asher!)

I didn't read Vickie's entire blog, but her first sentence caught my eye, and I would have to concur. I really (and I mean really) appreciated not only Newkirk's message, but his style of writing. Finally, someone who could successfully reach out to us impostors! I, too, find case studies to be especially appealing because they actually provide something concrete for me to grasp, or at least provide some semblance of touch, although I don't think I would ever assume that one case study could speak for the multitudes. Oh, don't get me wrong--I did start this whole teaching journey thing with stars in my eyes. But it doesn't take long to realize what works for one does not work for all or even some. For example, one of my students handed in an assignment today which was due yesterday. And it was crap. He knew it was crap. I asked if he could stay after class to chat a minute or two to which he agreed, but I gave him little indication as to what we would discuss as I like to keep things as confidential as possible. This gentleman needed some serious prodding with respect to this specific assignment as well as his entire lackadaisical approach to this semester in general. I blatantly told him what he handed in was "half-ass" and I knew he was capable of much more. Now, I wouldn't dare assume that I could speak to all students this way, nor should I, and get the same positive response. But I had this student last semester; I knew we had "an understanding." Obviously this scenario will not end up as a case study on students who do not work to their potential. However, case studies provide invaluable information as long as we don't assume they are scripture. And, that they provide the right amount of detail: too little and they're boring, too much and we get lost trying to make sense of the author's purpose.

As Newkirk goes on to tell of his book, More than Stories on page 143, I immediately thought of Jim Burke, author of The English Teacher's Companion. A more apt title is The Amazing Teaching Adventures of Super Jim or maybe even Saint Jim Has All Your Pedagogical Answers. Yes, Jim Burke provides tons of examples, and not one even remotely mentions less than successful results, or as Newkirk admits, "In it everything seems to work; the intentions of the teacher seem to be fully realized." After reading Burkes' book, it, too, appeared "too good to be true." Interestingly, I recall hearing about Ross Burkhardt who was featured in Perl and Wilson's Through a Teachers Eyes during the invitational summer institute and was initially startled by their candor. Nevertheless,it was refreshing to discover that not everyone can be a Jim Burke. Let's face it, sometimes we are just Ross Burkhardts.

Maybe it was just me, but I got a bit lost in Lauer and Asher's "Case Studies"--this chapter just seemed so disconnected as they attempted to provide commentary on three case studies. I tackled the chapter (it won), albeit not as smoothly as I would have hoped; I found I was continually rereading and retracking my steps in order to refresh myself as to the gist of the case studies. The good news is that after reading Newkirk, I tackled it again with a little more success. Oh, it still won, but I gave it a run for its money the second time around. Are the symbols and marks used in the tables universal, or did the researchers themselves come up with a method by which to record their observations, hence the accompanying "keys"? I did appreciate the discussion and concrete examples of the identification of variables in all three case studies on page 31! It's astonishing how excited one can get when one comes upon something concrete, something real! I'm still shaky on conceptual and operational definitions, and I'm hoping we can discuss these terms as well as the checklist for reading "Case Studies" on Page 34--some clarification here would be most helpful for my overall understanding.

Voyeurism at its finest!

Who does not observe others' actions, behaviors, etc., unconsciously or consciously, when in a public setting? What Adler and Alder set out to do, along with convincing their audience that naturalistic observation is a fine research technique, is to label what we tend to do naturally, and, of course, to differentiate between the casual, non-systematic and non-purposive observer and one who does it for the purposes of justifiable research. Interestingly, I found myself able to identify with or make analogies to my own life experiences to many (not ALL) of the scenarios presented by Adler and Alder, but typically only in the casual sense. I've been that parent in the school taking peripheral membership and have witnessed some shocking behaviors and scenarios. As a pre-student teacher, I had to observe schools, classrooms, teachers, and student behavior/participation, noting in detail "interactions, routines, rituals, temporal elements, interpretations, and social organizations" (380). At the time we were required to turn in our notes; I suppose they were to assure the professor that we were fully engaged. But after reading Adler and Alder, what would have been interesting, as well as validating, would have been for all of us to share and analyze our observations. In my former life as a legal secretary and paralegal, I had the opportunity to observe scenarios similar to Maynard (387) as I transcribed tapes of various types of discussions, meetings, and legal proceedings. Although I was not present in the room as the dialogues were taking place, I could still get a sense of the subtext infused throughout. Taking part in depositions and reading the transcripts later were particularly interesting, as the stenographer would try to capture sounds and hesitations that didn't necessarily or easily translate into words. And, I have observed different types of courtroom proceedings, from support court to a personal injury case. Still, though, I was just a casual observer. And, like me, I'm sure many have seen those television shows where people wear "fat suits" to immerse themselves in "'every day reality--feel it, touch it, hear it, and see it--in order to understand it'" as Adler and Adler discuss Verstehen, referring to the works of Kotarba & Fontana (387). These "reseachers" are inevitably shocked at what they observe, at what they eventually feel.

Although without a system or means to record my observations, as an amateur ethnomethodoligist and with purposeful intentions, I have often observed conversations as discussed by Adler and Adler with respect to the research of Schegloff and McHoul (386). I have been an observer and I have been a participant observer (or is that observer participant--I just can't seem to distinguish between the two!). Fascinating stuff, but I must admit, I found myself guilty of those conversational oddities that I found so annoying and distracting in others.

Now onto Creepy McCreepster, Laud Humphrey, making an appearance on page 385. I initially noted his research (if that's what you want to call it, although I'm not sure how beneficial it is to know this stuff) to be creepy (my exact words in the margin)and wondered how he was able to get those license plate numbers magically turned into names and addresses. I was then pleasantly surprised to have my own thoughts reflected in the varied responses to Humprhey's research and the subsequent discussion of the ethics of this type of research. Not that I think the bathroom behavior was acceptable, but what right did Humphrey have to obtain identifying information and make personal visits for interviews, etc.? Even Humphrey's rationale did not justify his actions: well, someone's gotta do it and it might as well be me instead of the police! Yeah, right.